R v Jones - [2012] NZHC 3147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-009-238 [2012] NZHC 3147

THE QUEEN

v

TERRY JONES

RICHIE STUART CLUTTERBUCK LEON DELSHANNON TURNER

Counsel: K B Bell and C D Newman for Crown
J Rapley for Jones
P J Norcross for Turner
R S Clutterbuck in person (with B R Green as amicus) Sentence: 23 November 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF DOBSON J

[1] I have to sentence each of you on one conviction for blackmail. You were all found guilty by a jury at the end of a trial in this Court in early October 2012. I deferred entering a conviction in your case, Mr Jones, and I now do so.

[2] I am to sentence each of you on the view I take of the evidence at the trial, bearing in mind that my view has to be consistent with the verdicts of the jury.

[3] That means it is appropriate for your counsel, and in your case
Mr Clutterbuck for you, to urge on me a view of all the evidence we heard that is most favourable to you, in minimising your criminal conduct. However, that does

R v JONES HC CHCH CRI-2012-009-238 [23 November 2012]

not mean you can re-write history and ask to be assessed for sentencing on a version of the events that is inconsistent with the evidence we heard and the jury’s verdict.

[4] Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am amply satisfied that the summary I am about to give is reflected in the evidence, and is consistent with the jury’s verdicts.

Mr Jones

[5] You had previously obtained permission from the complainant, Mr Pascoe, to bury a sum of cash on his rural property outside Nelson. He did not know precisely how much, but it was most likely in a range between $30,000 and $50,000. I infer Mr Pascoe was aware that the money was from illegitimate sources, despite the initial explanation he said that you gave him that it represented the proceeds of the sale of a bus. On occasions after the box was initially buried, amounts were added and removed. Although you may have intended that the location of the hidden money was to be a closely guarded secret between you and Mr Pascoe, at least within a period of your being remanded in custody on other matters, others became aware of its whereabouts. When Mr Pascoe was pressed to dig up the money and deliver it to someone else, he reported to your partner in Nelson, and then to you, that the money had gone.

[6] I am satisfied from Mr Pascoe’s responses at the time, and from his evidence at the trial, that he genuinely thought that the amount was substantially less than the amount of $72,000 that you referred to in one of your communications to him. In other words, you were demanding more than the cash that had been in the can as an informal “tax” or interest charge for the trouble in getting…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2012] NZHC 3147
Case: [2012] NZHC 3147
Decision Date: 23 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones involved four defendants, Terry Jones, Richie Stuart Clutterbuck, Leon Delshannon, and Turner, who were convicted of blackmail. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentences for each defendant, taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offence, as well as the individual contributions of each defendant. The court also had to consider aggravating and mitigating factors for each defendant.

The court found that the blackmail was a criminal enterprise undertaken for personal gain. Terry Jones was the instigator and promoter of the blackmail, and Richie Stuart Clutterbuck was the principal offender who delivered the threats. Turner's involvement was limited to the day of the meeting with the victim, but his contributions added to the seriousness of the threats faced by the victim. Leon Delshannon's role in the offending was not clearly established.

In determining the sentences, the court considered the purposes of sentencing, the seriousness of the offence, and the individual contributions of each defendant. The court also took into account aggravating and mitigating factors for each defendant. Terry Jones was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment, Richie Stuart Clutterbuck to two years and nine months' imprisonment, and Turner to two years' imprisonment. Leon Delshannon was not sentenced as his role in the offending was not clearly established.

The court emphasised the need to hold the defendants accountable for the harm they had done, to denounce blackmail and to deter them and others from similar offending. The court also recognised the need to consider the prospects for rehabilitation of each defendant.

Orders